May 16, 2008Gay marriage in CaliforniaFor Monday, we are writing about the gay marriage decision in California. We'll urge Virginians to take a deep breath before trying to turn it into a November campaign issue. This decision does not affect the commonwealth, where voters shamefully ensconced bigotry in the state constitution. The decision is, however, an important step in slow movement toward marriage equality in America. Indeed, California found a ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional 20 years before the U.S. Supreme Court. |
SearchQuick Thought
Recent comments
Monthly archivesCategories
Latest columnsToday's editorialsLetters to the editorAbout this blogThe Roanoke Times editorial staff engages readers in a respectful dialogue and exchange of opinion, including our virtual editorial board where you can discuss tomorrow's editorials today. Read more about the editorial staff .....Advertisement.....
|
May 16, 2008
Gay marriage in California
For Monday, we are writing about the gay marriage decision in California. We'll urge Virginians to take a deep breath before trying to turn it into a November campaign issue. This decision does not affect the commonwealth, where voters shamefully ensconced bigotry in the state constitution. The decision is, however, an important step in slow movement toward marriage equality in America. Indeed, California found a ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional 20 years before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Comments
[May 16, 2008 11:27 AM]
Other JohnI still feel that marriage is something that is between a man and a woman and is more specifically a religious term that should have no state involvement whatsoever. However, if churches or other religious institutions decide to permit or sanction gay marriages, then I think it should be perfectly acceptable and the state should just butt out since it is none of the state's concern of who marries who. And besides, just because some gay couples decide to get married, what impact does that have on heterosexual couple's marraiges? None. If some folks here in Virginia decide to get married and they happen to be gay, my marriage is not affected in any way, and neither is anyone else's. When you cut through the crap that's tossed around over this issue, banning gay marriages is really nothing more than one religious group working to impliment portions of what they beleive (in a religious sense) into state/federal law, thereby slowly transforming a republic (or what's left of it anyway) to a theocracy.
[May 16, 2008 11:59 AM]
HenryWhy just couples?
[May 16, 2008 8:39 PM]
JoshYeah, why not a threesome? a fivesome? Why not roommates? Why not the whole apartment building? Why not a person and the nice old lady across the street? Why not me and my cat? Who is anyone to demean or diminish whichever relationship I choose, and deny my right to marry (and receive the tax benefits) anybody or anything I choose?
[May 17, 2008 2:07 AM]
C RamseySo the California Supreme Court found interracial marriage unconstitutional. Who knew?
You guys might want check that last line. And since the editorial board staff apparently isn't spending it's time editing its own work, perhaps they could explain why everyone should welcome some people's beliefs and lifestyles with open arms but we should consider the beliefs of those who disagree to be shameful.
Perhaps there's an 'evolutionary advantage' that I'm missing.
[May 17, 2008 7:31 AM]
BUDyeah this open marriage thing solves some tax/estate issues too..on your death bed you can marry your kids and leave them your retirement plan and house and maybe a business tax free... and if you see someone without medical coverage going through some "procedures" marry them and stick the insurance co. with the loss--drive up premiums for the rest of the folks at your employment--so what.
[May 17, 2008 8:50 AM]
c. trejbalThe 1948 California decision in Perez v. Sharp found California's anti-miscegenation law unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.
You can listen to the oral arguments in the Loving case.
[May 17, 2008 12:39 PM]
HenryLast I heard, interracial adoption in state foster care is still against the law in NC. Hopefully, that have changed that.
[May 17, 2008 1:27 PM]
C RamseyYes Christian, that's correct. However, your teaser said they found interracial marriage unconstitutional. That's a far cry from finding laws prohibiting it unconstitutional.
[May 17, 2008 2:06 PM]
c. trejbalI apologize for the typo. It has been corrected.